UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 10, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ALEX ADAMS, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00076 § UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et § al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On February 7, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 87), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (D.E. 86). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 87), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (D.E. 86). ORDERED on March 10, 2025. GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2